Return to: Home | Blogs | Conference blog

Brown's comeback

In all it was a well-executed speech for a Prime Minister under siege and as ministers and activists pore over the detail in the weeks to come, it may well provide the starting point for a wider debate about the direction of the government and party.

Gordon Brown's Labour Conference speech was never going to be the 'make-or-break' point which many commentators were trying to engineer, but he certainly used the opportunity to take on his critics and win back the public. 

Progress's editorial (http://www.progressonline.org.uk/Magazine/article.asp?a=3379) in its conference edition of the magazine argued that the crucial thing the Prime Minister should do in his speech was to take responsibility for the government's mistakes in the last year, and the 10p tax debacle in particular. So it was good to see that he admitted early on in the speech that it was indeed a mistake and that taking the side of hard-working families will be a priority henceforth. It wasn't as explicit an apology as Tony Blair made over the 75p pension rise in 2000, but it was welcome nevertheless.

We also suggested that the PM should use his speech to argue that the government can no longer make the changes to Britain it seeks by governing by central dictat and that there needed to be a new contract between citizen and state. There was a reference to the changing role of the state when Gordon said: "Let us be clear the modern role of government is not to provide everything, but it must be to enable everyone." It was a shame, however that he didn't go much further than that.

There were other elements which suggested he'd listened to people's concerns. For instance it was a good move to pledge that as families have to "make economies to make ends meet" so the government too "will ensure that we get value for money out of every single pound" of taxpayers' money. Though he didn't go as far as we did and suggest that the size of Whitehall should be cut by a quarter or that the number of government ministers should be whittled down, but I guess he needs as many members of the PLP on the payroll as possible at the moment...

Progress has long campaigned for greater UK commitment to expose and act on the human rights abuses in Burma, Zimbabwe and Darfur, so Gordon's reiterated plea from last year's conference speech that the words 'never again' should not become "just a slogan" and should be instead "the crucible in which our values are tested" was welcome. But as in so many areas of government, the fine words of a speech are barely translated into practice when the stage set is dismantled. Let's hope that this year sees more action from our government in putting pressure on those regimes which think they can transgress international law without fear of retaliation.

I wasn't so sure whether the more populist measures in the speech might be storing up problems for the future. For example, while I can see why those suffering from cancer will see real benefit from the pledge to not charge for their prescriptions, won't this simply create even more inconsistency in an already byzantine system of charges and how do we respond to patients with other potentially life-threatening illnesses? More popular on the doorstep by far would have been to agree to abolish hospital car parking charges and telephone charges.

I also wasn't convinced that the move to charge migrants for use of public services will work in practice and doesn't it send the wrong signal at a time when our economy will increasingly rely on migrant labour? Are we ready to charge them for the use of schools and surely not for emergency health care?

But in all it was a well-executed speech for a Prime Minister under siege and as ministers and activists pore over the detail in the weeks to come, it may well provide the starting point for a wider debate about the direction of the government and party.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

4 comments from readers

entrails
23 September 2008 at 21:30

Words, words, words....

I've had it with New Labour. I'm not even listening any more. The image that comes to mind is a bunch of clowns building a castle and using the foundations as the quarry.

Abandon the whole 'let us own you' data aggregation conspiracy, and all the other paternalistic, centralising, control freakery; get a grip on actually showing real leadership, vision, and courage over weaning us all off our carbon addiction; start to face up to the fact that the NHS can never be 'all things to all people' but can be an excellent source of basic health care; encourage teachers to actually 'teach' instead of apparatchiks for 'education-lite'---start to DO things like that and I might just begin to think they have some idea along with some integrity.

Instead we have Meg Hillier saying they want to stuff ID cards down the throats of children, and leave office with the whole scheme in such an advanced stage of bureaucratic ossification that it can't be removed. Lovely!

So, Gordon, fine words mean nothing at all in the face of the evidence in front of our eyes. Whatever good you lot have done is being undone by the good you are not doing, and the wickedness you are perpetrating on this nation---the last time people were tagged and treated like cattle terrible things happened.

Nilsey105
23 September 2008 at 22:21

"...at a time when our economy will increasingly rely on migrant labour?"

And how on earth are we going to afford to have more migrants? We have 1.7 million unemployed at present.

The labour market is about to shrink due to the crises in the financial sector. All sectors of the economy are going to be affected.

Its been guessed at we will have 2 million unemployed come xmas. How many by xmas 2009?

One of the reasons we have so much knife crime is that lots of these kids have no meaningful jobs. They dont need YOPS schemes. They need real appenticeships in the manufactureing / building and maintenance sectors.

You people really need to get real instead of being in cloud cookoo land

Nilsey105
23 September 2008 at 22:29

Labour used to be the party of no unemployment. We did, however, have to accept 3-4 % to take account of people changing jobs etc.

New Labour is obviously intent on creating an ever bigger pool of unemployed.

Increase unemployment = a reduction in taxation to the exchequor at the same time as the exchequor has to increase benefits. Books dont balance. Get the picture?

gnuneo
25 September 2008 at 16:15

as you say jessica, nice words, but will the actions follow, is this just yet another exercise in the '3rd way'*, or will policy change?

*= the Left gets words, and the Right gets action.

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

Blears joins the Tories

01 October 2008 16:51

Sombre Tories

01 October 2008 09:10

Tackling homelessness

29 September 2008 18:34

Yet to seal the deal

27 September 2008 09:27

The need for 'narrative'

23 September 2008 15:43

Time to rein in the wreckless

22 September 2008 20:04

A bold vision?

22 September 2008 13:17

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Blogroll

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker